Disposed¶21

Dhirendra Kumar Roy v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2024WPC/242/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court writ petition disposed: Assistant Librarian paid as counter clerk; services regularized 04.07.2006; claim for monetary benefits from date of initial appointment and Assistant Librarian pay scale; University's January 2023 pay-fixation proposal pending final decision by State of Jharkhand; directions to take informed decision and disburse benefits within eight weeks; SKM University Dumka; Director (Higher Education), HRD Ranchi; Dr. Justice S. N. Pathak; order dated 04.03.2024.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the State and respondents to take an informed decision on the University's pay-fixation recommendation and, if the petitioner is found entitled, to extend and disburse the Assistant Librarian pay-scale benefits within eight weeks of receipt/production of a copy of the order. ¶21

Dhirendra Kumar Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to monetary benefits from the date of his initial appointment, notwithstanding that his services were regularized on 04.07.2006. +1 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

In view of the University counsel's fair submission, the Court directed the State to take an informed decision on the University's recommendation regarding the petitioner's pay fixation.

¶17

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is found entitled to the benefits claimed regarding fixation of pay scale, having worked on the post of Assistant Librarian, the same shall be extended to him after fixation of salary on that post within eight weeks from receipt/production of a copy of the order.ratio¶20
If no decision has been taken, the respondents shall take an informed decision and, if the petitioner is found entitled, the same shall be disbursed to him.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(S) No. 242 of 2024, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Dr. Justice S. N. Pathak), order dated 04.03.2024 — Petitioner, an Assistant Librarian paid on the counter clerk scale and regularized on 04.07.2006, sought monetary benefits from his date of initial appointment and the Assistant Librarian pay scale. The University submitted that the terms and conditions of regularization provide for monetary benefits only from the date of regularization, and that its January 2023 proposal and recommendations for pay fixation at the Assistant Librarian scale awaited the State's final decision. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed the State to take an informed decision on the University's recommendation and, if the petitioner is found entitled, to extend the pay-scale benefits after salary fixation within eight weeks of receipt/production of a copy of the order; where no decision had been taken, the respondents were directed to take an informed decision and disburse the amount if the petitioner is found entitled.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 242 of 2024

¶4

Dhirendra Kumar Roy … … Petitioner

¶5

V e r s u s

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Director (Higher Education), HRD, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶8

The Vice Chancellor, SKM University, Dumka

¶9

The Registrar, SKM University, Dumka

¶10

… … Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents Ms. Rukmini Kumar, AC to SC Mines-III For the University Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate

¶13

04/04.03.2024 Heard the parties.

¶14

Petitioner is claiming monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment since his service has been regularized though on 04.07.2006 but the same has been done from the date of initial appointment. Further it has been argued that though petitioner is working as an Assistant Librarian, he has been given salary of counter clerk.

¶15

It has been argued that petitioner is entitled for the monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment as well as pay scale of Assistant Librarian and not counter clerk.

¶16

Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel representing University submits that petitioner is not entitled for the monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment as terms and conditions of regularization clearly mentions that the monetary benefits will be given from the date of regularization. However, so far pay scale of Assistant Librarian is considered, the same is under active consideration and final order has not been passed yet. Learned counsel further argues that proposal and recommendations regarding consideration of petitioner’s pay fixation in the salary admissible to an Assistant Librarian has been made and it is the State who has to take a final decision. Learned counsel for the University submits that proposal and recommendations were made in the month of January, 2023 but till date the University has not received any order regarding fixation of salary for the post of Assistant Librarian.

¶17

In view of fair submission made by learned counsel for the University, I, hereby, direct the State to take an informed decision on the

¶18

¶19

¶20

recommendation of the University and if petitioner is found entitled for the benefits claimed for regarding fixation of pay scale, as he has worked on the post of Assistant Librarian, the same shall be extended to him after fixation of salary on the post of Assistant Librarian within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It is made clear if any decision has not been taken, the respondents shall take an informed decision and if petitioner is found entitled, the same shall be disbursed to him.

¶21

With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Dhirendra Kumar Roy v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Kumar Roy v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riddhi Goyal Vs Ritesh Mittal

Anuradha Burnwal Vs Mayank Raj

Neha Tiwari Alias Neha Pathak Vs Sidharth Tiwari

Bhagwan Singh Vs The General Manager Kusunda Area Of Gondudih Colliery Of Ms B C C L

Mukteshwar Datta Singh Vs Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Raghubans Singh Vs State of Jharkhand